Objective review of Republican candidates for President

[drogulus]

     Those are the reasons it will be tough. It will spread slowly.

[Todd]

It will spread slowly.

Again, the term gerrymandering is 200 years old, but the practices it describes are even older.  Electoral shenanigans are as old as the Republic.  Much older, if one looks to other, ancient examples.  This doesn't bother me a great deal.  As long as their are at least two parties constantly fighting for the upper hand, it will prevent one from gaining too much power over the nation as a whole.  As long as that doesn't happen, things are good.  Plus there's more entertainment to be had.

[drogulus]

     I share your distrust, if that's what it is, of referenda. Occasionally they accomplish something worth doing. Most of them are nuisance issue stuff.

     I'm less impressed by 200 year old, or 2,000 year old precedents. If you think things can't change they will anyway, but more slowly. It's best to try to move them along if you favor them.

[Todd]

I share your distrust, if that's what it is, of referenda.


I'm less impressed by 200 year old, or 2,000 year old precedents. If you think things can't change they will anyway, but more slowly. It's best to try to move them along if you favor them.

The state I live in is rotten with initiatives, most of them awful, and the entire concept of an initiative is in many ways incompatible with constitutional government.  What's the point in constitutional government if a majority of a minority of ill-informed citizens can change it every two years?  (Most initiatives involve changing the state constitution in these parts.)

As to 200 or 2000 year old precedents, it's not so much that I think things cannot or do not change, but rather that one of the things to aspire to is to make systemic change as difficult and cumbersome as possible.  Such change should be difficult.  In addition, I look at history and see the desire of people to control others, irrespective of whether the government is monarchy, oligarchy, or democracy.  Best to make such control as fleeting and inconsequential as possible.  I also see that whatever reforms or changes may be implemented, some people will always try to mitigate the effects of such changes. 

[drogulus]

The state I live in is rotten with initiatives, most of them awful, and the entire concept of an initiative is in many ways incompatible with constitutional government.  What's the point in constitutional government if a majority of a minority of ill-informed citizens can change it every two years?  (Most initiatives involve changing the state constitution in these parts.)

As to 200 or 2000 year old precedents, it's not so much that I think things cannot or do not change, but rather that one of the things to aspire to is to make systemic change as difficult and cumbersome as possible.  Such change should be difficult.  In addition, I look at history and see the desire of people to control others, irrespective of whether the government is monarchy, oligarchy, or democracy.  Best to make such control as fleeting and inconsequential as possible.  I also see that whatever reforms or changes may be implemented, some people will always try to mitigate the effects of such changes. 

     I agree with all of your points, though I will try to conceal my disappointment. Yes, they will try, we will try, and so on. Nevertheless, the country was formed by people who ignored your sensible advice. We should do our best to fuck them over big time.

[Todd]

Nevertheless, the country was formed by people who ignored your sensible advice.

Not true at all.  Look how hard it is to change the Constitution.  That's brilliant.  Federalism, enumerated powers, etc.  The structure of the US political system is beautifully structured to limit the potential damage wrought by overzealous reformers.  For every FDR, there is a Supreme Court appointed by his predecessors.  Good stuff.

[eyeresist]

Let's see, the term gerrymandering dates back 200 years exactly.  Yes, I think non-partisan apportionment will come any day now.

You need someting like this:

...the AEC [Australian Electoral Commission] has one primary outcome for which we are funded, namely:

1. Maintain an impartial and independent electoral system for eligible voters through active electoral roll management, efficient delivery of polling services and targeted education and public awareness programs.

[Todd]

You need someting like this:

Won't happen.  Both parties benefit too much from the current system.  Democrats may like to occasionally talk of reform - but not really of their safe districts.  Some members of Congress are elected and reelected with profoundly undemocratic margins - in 2008, some representatives were elected with 75, 80, even 90%+ of the vote.  The highest I recall was a Democrat from New York who had something like 95 or 97%  Even dictators running phony elections don't give themselves that much of the "vote." (Saddam Hussein was an exception.)  Any commission would be appointed evenly between the duopoly.  We'd need to move to open primaries, and even then we'd need a way to allow for more than just two candidates, since the reality in some parts of the country is that you'd have two Democrats or two Republicans running against each other in the general election.

[chasmaniac]

Not true at all.  Look how hard it is to change the Constitution.  That's brilliant.  Federalism, enumerated powers, etc.  The structure of the US political system is beautifully structured to limit the potential damage wrought by overzealous reformers.  For every FDR, there is a Supreme Court appointed by his predecessors.  Good stuff.

You're looking after the fact. I thought the quoted remark referred to the revolutionary origins of the US. Neither parliament nor king was asked whether there should be a new country and if so, what should it be like? 

[Todd]

Neither parliament nor king was asked whether there should be a new country and if so, what should it be like?

That's certainly true, but I don't see a whole lot of support for fundamental structural change in this country.  Oh, sure, people whine about, say, the Electoral College about once every four years.  Or perhaps they whine about lifetime appointments of Supreme Court justices (which Rick Perry, of all people, offered a sensible solution to).  Or maybe corporations being treated like people, which is not strictly true, but it's a Big Idea du jour.  (Okay, it's been an issue since at least Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, but it waxes and wanes.)  But these issues can be addressed without fundamental change - simply (hah!) amend the Constitution and/or pass the appropriate legislation.

Some people want "real" change.  Some people want "substantive democracy."  I got it.  But do such desires actually correspond to the ideals and plans of the Founding Fathers (if that even matters)?  Would such changes really be for the better?  And how would that look?  And who would lead such a change?

[eyeresist]

Todd for Pres!

[Todd]

"If nominated I will not run; if elected I will not serve."

[Philoctetes]

Todd for Pres!

Um.. no. Don't you know Todd's last name?

[eyeresist]

Um.. no. Don't you know Todd's last name?

I have no idea who that is. [/Australian]

[Philoctetes]

I have no idea who that is. [/Australian]

Todd Palin, the husband of Sarah.

[Florestan]

Some people want "real" change.  Some people want "substantive democracy."  I got it.  But do such desires actually correspond to the ideals and plans of the Founding Fathers (if that even matters)?

I am not American so probably I should not comment on this but I can't help it.

What resemblance is there between the specific late 18-th century conditions in the 13 British American Colonies and the specific early 21-st century conditions in the United States of America that would warrant the ideas and plans of the FF and the resulting Constitution are still valid and functional?

who would lead such a change?

Why, another 39 men under the guise of "We the People"...  It's been done before and it worked.

[eyeresist]

What resemblance is there between the specific late 18-th century conditions in the 13 British American Colonies and the specific early 21-st century conditions in the United States of America that would warrant the ideas and plans of the FF and the resulting Constitution are still valid and functional?

Sorry, I can't read that without thinking this:

[Florestan]

Sorry, I can't read that without thinking this:

Perhaps today I'm dumber than usual but could you please explain me the trick? 

[eyeresist]

Perhaps today I'm dumber than usual but could you please explain me the trick? 

You used "FF" as an abbreviation of "founding fathers" (I bolded it in the quote), but for some reason those initials remind me first of a certain superhero team.

Probably a mental residue of the movie campaign a few years ago.

[Florestan]

You used "FF" as an abbreviation of "founding fathers" (I bolded it in the quote), but for some reason those initials remind me first of a certain superhero team.

Oh I see. Thanks.